On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 02:56:28PM -0500, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Brian Cuttler <br...@wadsworth.org> wrote: > > Virtual DLEs !?! > > > > That is EXACTLY what we need ! > > > > I know you warned us, but I'm REALLY Excited about this ! > > > > That would _so_ fix my Terrabyte sized DLE problem... > > Yes, yes it would. It would fix a lot of problems! > > I don't think it's the right solution to the problem, though. It > takes as fundamental Amanda's funny notion of DLEs and exclusion > lists, and tries to build a working system around that. If it could > work in a way that makes any sense to the user, I might be convinced, > but as it stands there are some *very* significant unanswered > questions, and probably a lot of more subtle problems, too.
I can imagine another way to use vDLEs. I'm thinking of having them apply during amrecover runs. Suppose you have a filesystem that you backup as multiple DLEs using the include/exclude facilities. Or a set of DLEs that comprise a single system. If you could group them under a single vDLE, then you could run amrecover using the vDLE rather than having to run multiple amrecovers. I suppose something like this would be possible changing how the dumps are created. Jon -- Jon H. LaBadie j...@jgcomp.com JG Computing 12027 Creekbend Drive (703) 787-0884 Reston, VA 20194 (703) 787-0922 (fax)
